It can't have officers, either.
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Gary McGath <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> A non-organization without a defined membership can't have votes on
> anything. At best it can have straw polls; the decision falls with the
> person or people running the service or activity. They can decide to go
> with the straw poll, but it's still their decision.
> On 1/24/13 4:37 PM, Shaun Ellis wrote:
>>> I am uneasy about coming up with a policy for banning people (from
>>> what?) and voting on it, before it's demonstrated that it's even
>>> needed. Can't we just tackle these issues as they come up, in context,
>>> rather than in the abstract?
>> I share your unease. But deciding to situations in context without a
>> set of guidelines is simply another kind of policy. I'm actually more
>> uneasy about ambiguity over what is acceptable, and no agreed upon way
>> to handle it.
>> I don't think the current policy is ready to "go to vote" as it seems
>> there is still some debate over what it should cover and exactly what
>> type of behavior it is meant to prevent.
>> I suggest there is a set time period to submit objections as GitHub
>> issues and resolve them before we vote. Whatever issues can't get
>> resolved end up in a branch/fork. In the end, we vote on each of the
>> forks, or "no policy at all".
>> Does that sound reasonable?
> Gary McGath, Professional Software Developer
The Cherry Hill Company